Biological Design Argument?

[Linusthe2nd]

Look. Some people just have bent minds and wills. They will not agree with anything that conflicts with their chosen ideology - whatever it is. A realist accepts the world the way he finds it. It is obvious that design permeates all the universe, from the macro to the nano. And the matter of the universe did not " willy nilly " bring itself into existence, and " willy nilly " keep itself in existence and " willy nilly " plan and direct every act and change form the first moment of a its existence. Therefore, there has to exist an Intelligent, First Uncaused Cause, transcending the universe ( not a part of it ) to account for existence, efficient causality, and order and direction.

This is common sense, you don’t have to be a genius to see it. But some minds and wills are bent. And either they do not see it or they see it and deny that they do.

Linus2nd

 

[Aloysium]

Look. Some people just have bent minds and wills. They will not agree with anything that conflicts with their chosen ideology - whatever it is. A realist accepts the world the way he finds it. It is obvious that design permeates all the universe, from the macro to the nano. And the matter of the universe did not " willy nilly " bring itself into existence, and " willy nilly " keep itself in existence and " willy nilly " plan and direct every act and change form the first moment of a its existence. Therefore, there has to exist an Intelligent, First Uncaused Cause, transcending the universe ( not a part of it ) to account for existence, efficient causality, and order and direction.

This is common sense, you don’t have to be a genius to see it. But some minds and wills are bent. And either they do not see it or they see it and deny that they do.

Linus2nd

 

[rossum]

It is obvious that design permeates all the universe, from the macro to the nano.

Watch the sun move across the sky. It is obvious that the earth is stationary while the sun moves round it.

What seems obvious may not be.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

How are your questions relevant to biological design? Do you have no evidence relevant to biological design?

 

[rossum]

You are in the process of producing evidence for Design - of which biological Design is an integral element.

When did this Biological design happen? Please answer my question, because I am finding it tiresome to have to keep repeating it.

Biology is science, and to ask when something happened is a legitimate question in science. Questions like, “When did the Chicxulub meteorite impact?”

In that case the spiritual values of Buddhism are also invented by man.

All religions are invented by man, and all the different denominations within those religions are also invented by man. The Buddha was a man, as was Jesus.

It reinforces the fact that you believe existence is purposeful yet you cannot explain the origin of purposeful existence.

I also believe that Christianity is wrong in some aspects. Does that mean you accept what I believe as necessarily true?

The topic is biological Design.

Agreed. When did this Biological design happen?

rossum

 

[Paddy_Walker]

Watch the sun move across the sky. It is obvious that the earth is stationary while the sun moves round it.

What seems obvious may not be.

rossum

yes, the sun does indeed move around the earth.

 

[rossum]

yes, the sun does indeed move around the earth.

But the Earth is not stationary.

rossum

 

[Paddy_Walker]

But the Earth is not stationary.

rossum

but who said it was?

 

[rossum]

but who said it was?

Someone taking the “common sense” and “obvious” approach to things.

In science, “it sure looks designed to me,” does not cut it. That is why Drs Behe and Dembski have attempted to provide objective methods to distinguish design from non-design. It is only objective, rather than subjective, methods of design detection that will gain any scientific traction for biological design.

rossum

 

[Paddy_Walker]

Someone taking the “common sense” and “obvious” approach to things.

In science, “it sure looks designed to me,” does not cut it. That is why Drs Behe and Dembski have attempted to provide objective methods to distinguish design from non-design. It is only objective, rather than subjective, methods of design detection that will gain any scientific traction for biological design.

rossum

‘it sure doesn’t look designed to me’, does not sound scientific either. if you can objectively identify design thats great, but how do you objectively not identify design?

 

[rossum]

‘it sure doesn’t look designed to me’, does not sound scientific either. if you can objectively identify design thats great, but how do you objectively not identify design?

I can think of two methods:

1. Show a non-design way that the thing can arise. A snowflake might be a good example here; it looks designed, but arises from the physical properties of water.
2. Absence of evidence for any designers in the right time and place. This is weaker because absence of evidence is not always evidence of evidence. However, it is indicative.

In the case of abiogenesis, we are not completely there yet. We have shown non-design origins for a number of important chemicals: amino acids, purines, pyrimidines, ribozymes and lipid bilayers. We also have no evidence of the existence of any designer on Earth at the time life was starting.

rossum

 

[Paddy_Walker]

I can think of two methods:

1. Show a non-design way that the thing can arise. A snowflake might be a good example here; it looks designed, but arises from the physical properties of water.
2. Absence of evidence for any designers in the right time and place. This is weaker because absence of evidence is not always evidence of evidence. However, it is indicative.

In the case of abiogenesis, we are not completely there yet. We have shown non-design origins for a number of important chemicals: amino acids, purines, pyrimidines, ribozymes and lipid bilayers. We also have no evidence of the existence of any designer on Earth at the time life was starting.

rossum

1. it looks designed, is important, but not conclusive. but how do you know that the water molecule and whatever laws of the universe controlling temperature and pressure were not designed? surely a designer of life and the universe is also a designer of this reality too.
2. i suppose you’d have to prove that something was designed before you could prove that something else was not designed. for if you have no example of design already proven then you cannot really recognize design nor lack of design.

 

[rossum]

1. it looks designed, is important, but not conclusive. but how do you know that the water molecule and whatever laws of the universe controlling temperature and pressure were not designed? surely a designer of life and the universe is also a designer of this reality too.

If water molecules are designed, then the design is at the level of astronomy/cosmology, not biology. There is no need to change biology at all; it is just that the materials biology work with were designed rather than not.

1. i suppose you’d have to prove that something was designed before you could prove that something else was not designed. for if you have no example of design already proven then you cannot really recognize design nor lack of design.

That is one of the issues with many forms of design; what is there that could not have been designed? ID types are very quick to propose things that could not have evolved, as did Darwin himself. They are less willing to propose things that could not have been designed.

It is not possible to have a reliable design detector unless there is something that it can be tested on to check that the red light is working correctly. I have myself made a proposal for a limited design detector; it can detect some, but not all, types of design: See Proposal for a Theistic Design Detector.

That piece also illustrates the problem of defining something that cannot have been designed.

rossum

 

[prodigalson2011]

I can think of two methods:
…

1. Absence of evidence for any designers in the right time and place. This is weaker because absence of evidence is not always evidence of evidence. However, it is indicative.

This is only so in cases which involve physical evidence. As the designer of the theistic hypothesis is not a physical being, it is not so.

We also have no evidence of the existence of any designer on Earth at the time life was starting.

It amazes me that someone as intelligent as yourself would say something so absurd. What do you expect to find? God-fossils? Traces of supernatural DNA?

 

[Aloysium]

. . . What do you expect to find? God-fossils? Traces of supernatural DNA?

wikipaintings.org/en/leonardo-da-vinci/views-of-a-foetus-in-the-womb-jpg

 

[prodigalson2011]

I have myself made a proposal for a limited design detector; it can detect some, but not all, types of design: See Proposal for a Theistic Design Detector.

That piece also illustrates the problem of defining something that cannot have been designed.

rossum

It makes a good gag, but your definition of CSI is woefully inaccurate. You assume the existence of an atemporal omniscient creator and therefore conclude that any complex information that exists qualifies as CSI due to its having been knowingly created by said entity. And hence, anything containing three or more atoms is a product of design. It’s an amusing reductio ad absurdum, but it hinges on a rather shameless combination of straw men and bait-and-switch proposals.

As always, I include the caveat that I have no commitments to ID theory (including CSI), but this just doesn’t cut the critical mustard.

 

[tonyrey]

You are in the process of producing evidence for Design - of which biological Design is an integral element.

It is occurring all the time in the physical and spiritual development in which you believe.

Biology is science, and to ask when something happened is a legitimate question in science. Questions like, “When did the Chicxulub meteorite impact?”

It is also a legitimate question in philosophy but it is not restricted in time and space, one example being spiritual development.

In that case the spiritual values of Buddhism are also invented by man.

All religions are invented by man, and all the different denominations within those religions are also invented by man. The Buddha was a man, as was Jesus.

“invented by man” implies that spiritual values do not correspond to reality and did not exist before man appeared on the scene - rather an anthropomorphic view which excludes the spiritual development of non-human beings.

It reinforces the fact that you believe existence is purposeful yet you cannot explain the origin of purposeful existence.

I also believe that Christianity is wrong in some aspects. Does that mean you accept what I believe as necessarily true?

This issue has nothing to do with Christianity but with the lack of an explanation for the origin of purposeful existence - which is to be found in Design.

The topic is biological Design.

Agreed. When did this Biological design happen?

It is occurring all the time in the physical and spiritual development in which you believe.

 

[nmgauss]

“invented by man” implies that spiritual values do not correspond to reality and did not exist before man appeared on the scene - rather an anthropomorphic view which excludes the spiritual development of non-human beings.

This issue has nothing to do with Christianity but with the lack of an explanation for the origin of purposeful existence - which is to be found in Design.

Has spiritual phenomena been explained by scientific study? Is spirituality only a feature of human existence? How can a non-human be spiritual?

Does existence have to be purposeful? The Earth is what it is. Does it have to have a purpose?

 

[Paddy_Walker]

If water molecules are designed, then the design is at the level of astronomy/cosmology, not biology. There is no need to change biology at all; it is just that the materials biology work with were designed rather than not.

That is one of the issues with many forms of design; what is there that could not have been designed? ID types are very quick to propose things that could not have evolved, as did Darwin himself. They are less willing to propose things that could not have been designed.

**It is not possible to have a reliable design detector unless there is something that it can be tested on to check that the red light is working correctly. ** I have myself made a proposal for a limited design detector; it can detect some, but not all, types of design: See Proposal for a Theistic Design Detector.

That piece also illustrates the problem of defining something that cannot have been designed.

rossum

isn’t it the point that you cannot deny design unless you can see what design looks like in reality.
design may be standing on your face but if you don’t know what design looks like then you cannot deny it is there.

(i don’t pretend to understand your design detector, if i weigh 5 atoms - then it proves design?)

 

[tonyrey]

“invented by man” implies that spiritual values do not correspond to reality and did not exist before man appeared on the scene - rather an anthropomorphic view which excludes the spiritual development of non-human beings.

No. Why do you believe science is capable of explaining everything?

Is spirituality only a feature of human existence?

No. Why should it be restricted to us?

How can a non-human be spiritual?

With supernatural powers like faith, rationality, consciousness, free will, moral awareness, aesthetic appreciation, discernment and the capacity for love.

Does existence have to be purposeful? The Earth is what it is. Does it have to have a purpose?

Without purpose nothing makes sense because the power of reason is essentially purposeful.